Alex White (Labour)

Is the Minister then saying there is more available to him and to the Government than what he has communicated to us? Can he tell us what it is or give us some insight into the empirical evidence to which he refers? When he is pressed on it he talks about what the Minister for Defence said and about the Keane case. With regard to the latter case, by the way, which has been invoked over and over, am I correct in stating that the trial was moved to Dublin and a conviction was secured? I must be, because I have not been corrected and I am sure I would have been if I were wrong.

With regard to the evidence we are seeking, obviously the Minister will not reveal everything said to him by the Garda and by others in the course of his preparation of this legislation - although, in a spirit of openness in any society, including in the area of criminal justice, it would be preferable if the default position were to reveal everything rather than withholding it. I accept there are operational and security issues in this regard and that not everything can be revealed. The Minister cannot open up the file with the evidence and hand it around in public. However, I would have thought some summary of the nature and, in particular, the extent of the evidence for intimidation of jurors would be appropriate.

I accept the Minister has addressed - under pressure and with the support of Opposition parties - the issue of witness intimidation. However, he keeps invoking this in support of this Bill, which is not about witnesses, as we must keep pointing out. It is about a perception and an apprehension, which we are asked to accept on trust, that there are, as the Minister said, definite levels of intimidation of witnesses and juries. Yet, apart from the mention of that single trial in Limerick which was moved to Dublin and a conviction secured, and the assertions of the Minister for Defence, no evidence has been offered.

I am a citizen of this country. I have children and I want them to be safe; I want all of us to be safe. However, as a legislator, I cannot in all honesty stand here and agree to a momentous statement that the ordinary courts are not sufficient or appropriate for dealing with these matters, because I am not persuaded of this. Senator Mary White talked about the statement by the former High Court judge Mr. Feargus Flood in which he indicated he had presided over gangland trials in which he felt juries had returned the wrong verdicts. This is not at all the same as saying they returned the wrong verdicts in circumstances in which he believed, perceived or even was concerned that they were being intimidated. He did not say that. In fact, the piece referred to in The Sunday Tribune goes on to state, "Flood said he had not witnessed jury or witness intimidation first-hand as a judge but over the course of his career, juries had brought back what he felt was the wrong verdict in gangland trials." The Minister might reasonably ask how he would know whether somebody had been intimidated. However, we are being asked to accept this proposal on the basis that it could happen.

I am conscious of the Minister's question, which he has repeated, about whether anyone believes that if such people will intimidate witnesses they will not intimidate jurors. It is a reasonable debating point, but it concerns an apprehension of something he is concerned might happen in the future and is not predicated on any evidence of its having occurred in the past. Nor is there any evidence of, for example, perverse acquittals. The point made by Mr. Flood was with regard to his concern about juries bringing in incorrect verdicts. Is that part of the evidence considered by the Minister and the Cabinet? Was there widespread or even extensive evidence of perverse acquittals in which people were left with a genuine concern that the reason for an acquittal was that a juror had been intimidated? I am simply asking that.

With regard to the difficulty of impanelling juries, although we are talking about gangland offences in particular, everybody knows there is a massive problem with jury service in general. Senator Boyle mentioned this earlier. We cannot seek to advance an argument in the context of this Bill simply by pointing to the enormous problems that exist with regard to impanelling juries. I am sure the Minister is aware of the unfortunate fact that every day of the week people, particularly middle class people in the professions or with their own businesses, seek too quickly and successfully to have themselves excused from jury service. It is happening everywhere and not just in the area of gangland trials, although it would be churlish not to accept that jury service would not be the most welcome thing in the world, to put it mildly. It sounds as though I am diminishing the point, although I do not wish to. I am sure there is nobody who would feel particularly good if he or she were being impanelled on a jury to deal with one of these trials. I accept that and I agree that people would be concerned. However, we should not underestimate the sense of support people have on juries.

When one talks to people who have served on juries one finds they believe in the task they are given and engage with it. I do not practice in the area of criminal law and I never have, but I know from speaking to such lawyers that juries exercise a high level of responsibility towards the job in hand and give everything to it. There are sometimes difficulties for the State with impanelling juries; that is part of the criminal justice system we have. We must understand that it is not always easy but the State must stick with it. The State sometimes has a difficult task in obtaining prosecutions before juries but that does not mean it should not engage in it.

I am concerned that rather than making a case in respect of a tangible benefit from this change, which is what I would expect, the Minister is sending out a signal. I wonder - as I am entitled to, although I know this argument probably irritates the Minister - whether this is about sending out a signal to the public that the Minister, and thus the Government, are taking a hard line on crime. Are they trying to communicate this to the public rather than seeking to achieve a tangible benefit from the changes they are proposing?